不同材料及实施条件下的窝沟封闭临床效果观察

Clinical Observation of Pit and Fissure Sealant with Two Different Materials and Different Conditions

目的:比较不同窝沟封闭剂及不同实施条件对窝沟封闭剂保存率的影响,为选择效果良好的窝沟封闭剂及适宜的实施条件提供依据。方法:南昌市育新学校和城北小学二年级学生,随机选择7～8岁符合条件的儿童各100例,对比2所学校入校实施和进医院实施窝沟封闭的封闭效果,并且对育新学校100例观察不同封闭剂的封闭效果。结果:6个月、12个月、18个月后树脂型封闭剂Helioseal F和湿法粘结窝沟封闭剂Embrace WetBond封闭剂保留率及龋齿发病率的差异均无统计学差异,而学校和医院实施窝沟封闭的封闭剂保留率有统计学差异(P﹤0.05)。结论:树脂型封闭剂Helioseal F和湿法粘结窝沟封闭剂Embrace WetBond均具有良好的封闭效果,实施窝沟封闭时进医院的封闭效果优于入学校的封闭效果。

Objective： To provide evidence for selecting a type of fissure sealant and good implementing conditional. Methods： 100 children aged 7-8 years old were studied from Yuxin school and Chengbei school respectively. Carrying out the pit and fissure sealant in the school（group A） and in the hospitals（group B） were compared in two groups. 100 children from Yuxin school were used to observe the result of two different fissure sealants. Results： After 6, 12,18 months, the retention rate of HelioseaI F and Embrace WetBond were the same, and the retention rate of group A was statistically lower than that of group B（P〈0.05）. Conclusion： Both pit and fissure sealants Helioseal F and wet-bond sealant Embrace WetBond had an excellent sealing abilities. Better effect could be received if carrying out the pit and fissure sealant in the hospitals rather than in the school.